I didn't watch all the atrocities. I actually missed some of it because I was talking w/ my wife. Does that make Tom Hanks unhappy and why should I give a shit about what his 'vision' of his art is?
You should care because you have respect for him as a person, his skills as an actor, and the tremendous effort it takes to make a movie of that caliber.
An artist can have any vision he wants about any work he wants, but it is my view that determines if it is shit or a classic.
You might be able to develop a more informed opinion if you actually watched the movie rather than talking through it like some low-class trailer-park trash.
They are not putting this technology in every dvd player, nor are you forced to use this feature.
When a viewer watches a movie in a DVD player that includes this technology, the film is changed without the permission of the copyright holder, and the viewer may be left with an unfavorable impression of the film solely because of the changes. Word of mouth from that viewer could lead to lost DVD sales, harm to the reputation of the producer, director, actors, and studio. If your coworker told you that movie X was really confusing and poorly edited, you would not automatically ask "did you see it on a DVD player that removes 'objectionable' content"? Probably not. You'd just avoid that movie next time you went to rent or buy a DVD.
It moves sensorship[sic] from the fcc to the individual.
No, it moves censorship into the hands of Clearplay and the Mormon Church (the founder of Clearplay, BYU graduate Matt Jarmon, created the venture to make movies "Mormon-friendly").
If you are an "artist" then don't give consumers control over how your material is displayed. i.e. don't put out a dvd. You cannot have it both ways, that is complete control over presentation and the revenue stream generated by a medium that is implicitly controlled by the consumer.
The argument isn't against the consumer being able to pause, fast-forward, mute, etc. You have "fair use" rights to edit the DVD, rip it to your hard drive, replace the soundtrack, take out the dirty parts, take out everything but the dirty parts, and so on.
The problem with this is that RCA/Clearplay is not the consumer. They are editing the movies for profit, and by doing so, creating derivative works. Whether they do it in the player on the fly or provide physical media is immaterial. They are presenting a version of the movie which has been modified without the permission of the copyright holder.
If the copyright holder for "Lost in Translation" feels that a squeeky-clean version would, for artistic or monetary reasons, be a bad idea, they can choose not to permit such editing. And if a puritanical consumer doesn't want to see an unedited version of "Lost in Translation", then they can choose to see some other film.
Your argument carries a fallacious implicit assumption that the directors/artists rights carry more weight than the person who views them.
I make no such assumption, implicit or otherwise. If you, as a consumer, want to edit a DVD that you purchased, you have every right to do so - as long as you are not creating a derivative work for profit. You can take sex scenes out. You can splice them in from other movies. You can remove every instance of the word "adjust". You can speed it up, slow it down, or reverse the direction. Whatever floats your boat. But your purchase of a DVD does not permit RCA/Clearplay to create a derivative work from it.
They are not creating a derivative work, no matter how much you want to believe it. If I buy a fancy editing DVD player, and I buy a DVD to play in this DVD player, then I am creating a derivative work when I put the DVD in the DVD player- not Clearplay. And that is fully within my rights as long as I don't then copy and distribute that edited DVD.
Absurd. You are creating nothing. You aren't making edits, controlling the mute, or doing anything else related to the editing. You don't even know where to make the edits. You're simply sticking a DVD into a device which, through automation, creates and presents a derivative work on the fly.
It just makes you feel guilty about your pr0n habit when you read about people that choose to avoid content like that.
Unlike you, I'm not some conservative, puritanical, self-righteous, religious dogmatist who feels guilty about sex. If you are so scarred by religion that just seeing depictions of adult sexuality in a movie makes you uneasy, then stick with Disney films, but don't try to tell me that some Mormon zealot has a right to modify movies for profit without the copyright holder's permission.
Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, and Stanley Kubrick's happiness is irrelevant to me.
So what? I was refuting the claim by a poster who said this was a "win-win".
When I rent a movie, I pay money to entertain myself, not Tom Hanks. If I have to choose between what somebody else wants me to see and what I want to see, I will choose what I want to see every time.
The question isn't about what you want. It's about the rights of artists and copyright owners to control who edits their movies and, in the process, creates derivative works.
This really isn't that difficult.
Apparently it is, given the trouble you are having in recognizing that your desires don't trump someone else's legal rights.
To me it looks like RCA/Clearplay is selling a DVD players, and a list of times which tell a their player to turn off audio and video during certain parts of the movie of a specific movie, if the users wants to. Eg. From 22:45 to 22:46 don't play audio which containts "fuck", from 65:34 tp 73:03 don't play audio and video because there is a sex scene going on, etc. No modified or edited DVDs are leaving their offices, stores and warehouses. They are selling data about a movie, and a machine which can implement that data, if the consumer wants. No more.
You are completely correct. But the end result is what matters: The consumer is viewing a derivative work. Rather than seeing the movie as it was intended by the copyright owner, he's seeing something different. I don't think that Congress intended to ban the sale of derivative works on videotape but thought that delivering said works via an electronic means was an acceptable form of commerce. That they have found a way to create derivative works on the fly doesn't mean that they have a right to deliver such works to consumers without the permission of the copyright owner.
And it looks like you are playing the game of "How big of an idiot can fmaxwell be". Congrats. You just got a new high score.
Debate like a grown-up and quit resorting to childish insults. Or just go away. Either one is fine with me. But don't waste bandwith and storage if you lack the mental acuity to debate the points of this discussion.
I'm not trying to "weasel around copyright laws using technology" - your original (oh so many comments ago) post said zip about copyright (which, let's remember, is a *commercial* statute), it was about the importance of "artistic vision".
That's what copyrights protect. Duh! They allow a copyright owner to protect the artistic vision of his work.
As a parting comment, if this is just about copyrights and derivative works, then your earlier comment here about how you "...fully support your free speech rights to communicate that information and don't believe that the directors or anyone else has a right to interfere" doesn't stand up: how on earth do I have a free speech right to communicate derivative works without the copyright owner's permission?
Didn't score too high on reading comprehension, did you? I said that someone had the right to communicate where the naughty bits were in a movie, not to communicate a derivative work.
YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED. YOU LOSE IT. HAVE A NICE DAY;)
Why would you be proud of wasting someone's time. Grow up.
I've got 70 people listed on my freaks list and 238 on my fans list. You really are an idiot, aren't you? You just gave that one to me on a silver platter. LOL
And how, exactly, is that any different than me choosing how I'd like to watch the movie that I legally purchased?
I may want to watch "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" with a 7-dwarf gang-bang scene, but it doesn't mean that some corporate entity has a right to insert such a scene into the movie as a for profit venture.
There seems to be no logical problem in this.
Right. It's fair use. You are sharing the movie with a friend and not as a for-profit venture.
Instead of watching the movie at my place, he calls me up and asks me to come and program his DVD player so that he can watch the movie at his place the way we always enjoy it. How is this fundamentally different and not allowed?
As long as you don't get paid for it, it *may* be legal. If the chapter play is "random", then it can be argued that you are not creating a work as you are not exercising enough control for it to be considered your work.
But courts don't interpret the law by stringing far-fetched analogies together. Courts examine the intent of laws. Was the intent of the copyright laws to allow or prevent this type of commercial behavior? If the legislators didn't want someone to be able to physically redistribute an edited videotape or edited DVD, did they want someone else to be able to accomplish the same effect using high-speed seeking of DVD laser pickups, CPUs, and databases stored in a DVD player?
If they were to allow a company to delete scenes programmatically, would they also allow a company to replace dialog or scenes in a future DVD player? Would Clearplay be allowed to substitute dialog discussing the evils of premarital sex into a movie that previously had no such dialog?
By the way, about your picture of my mother analogy, as long as you don't try to display the photo as the original artist's intent
So do these DVD players put up a disclaimer over the credits stating that what the viewer has seen is an unauthorized edit of the movie, or do they just roll the credits as if nothing had happened? I don't know.
Copyright law says I can't sell it and claim it's mine, and that I can't make copies or derived works, but it most emphatically does not say that I have to watch it "as the director intended".
Yes, copyright law says that you can't sell derived works. And neither can RCA/Clearplay. That they have found a way to deliver edited films via electronic commands to a DVD player does not change the end result: They are creating, and profiting from, derivative works. They may not be using razor blades and adhesive tape to splice movies, but doing it electronically is still creating a derivative work.
Why do you keep coming back to the "poor-quality, artistically questionable edits" of these movies?
For one reason, you can't do a high-quality edit using the a fast-forward control. For another reason, there are very few people who have the artistic vision and editing ability of a Stanley Kubrick, a David Lean, or a Tom Hanks -- and it's doubtful that they are spending their career working in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thus the "artistically questionable" phrase.
And bringing the concept of Derivative works into a discussion of artistic vision is a double edged sword: although Tom Hanks may (may!) own the copyrights to his films (at least those he directs), the vast majority of movie copyrights are owned by the studios and/or producers, not the directors or actors.
That's a red herring argument. It's like saying that many artists sold the copyrights to their music, so anyone should be allowed to create derivative works for all music without compensating the copyright holder or getting permission from said copyright holder.
As for "this is no different than buying a videotape, splicing out the "dirty bits" and selling it" - yes it is: this is like selling people a guide which lets them splice out the "dirty bits" on their own videos.
You are completely, 100%, totally incorrect. If you sell them a guide, they know where the movies are being "spliced." What we are discussing is an electronic means of delivering an edited movie. The end result is a movie that plays from one end to another without user intervention and without the user being informed of where cuts were taking place. Again, you're playing the game of trying to weasel around copyright laws using technology.
Suppose you sell a diff of a Windows ISO and a Redhat ISO. That's just a description of how to change one into the other, so it's not a copyright violation. Yeah. Tell that to Microsoft.
There is no creation of a derivative work. There is no redistribution.
Of course there is. The derivative work is the edited version and it's being distributed electronically via instructions to a DVD player.
As I said in another post, technology is not supposed to provide a way to circumvent existing copyright laws. Suppose that Clearplay existed in 1985 and had a videotape of a commercial movie. Would it be legal for them to edit it and provide it to a customer for a profit? No, because it is a derivative work. The fact that they've figured out how to cut out scenes with a CPU rather than scissors doesn't change the basic fact that they are distributing a derivative work.
I get the feeling that for whatever reason you are just pissed that some people have different standards than you do.
To some extent, you are right. I am angry that people think that it's okay for some hack to take someone else's intellectual property, modify it, and redistribute it without the copyright holder's permission. There are movies that I find offensive. There are scenes in movies that I wish were not there. But I don't think that my dislike of those scenes means that I have a right to modify how others view the movie.
Well that's easy enough to fix: flash a little "this has been altered" icon on the screen or on the player during or just before/after any modified scenes. Add a disclaimer that says "this movie is being player through a b00bie blocker - some artistic degradagion may have occurred".
That sounds like a very good start to addressing the concerns that I, and many others, have with this device.
When you say things like "That requires that you actively compare the two and watch the material that you find offensive. Not going to happen..." you are ignoring the fact that rights are about what you may do, not what you actually do.
No, I am not. I'm saying that the rights of the director and actors are being violated and their reputations sullied by poor-quality, artistically questionable edits to their movies.
You continuously rail against "some hack in Utah" but what you're proposing is a beret wearing art policeman from... I dunno, Greenwich Village, who ensures that movies are only seen the "right" way.
Not true at all. I'm proposing that this be treated as a derivative distribution for which the distributer (RCA/Clearplay) needs to get permission from the copyright holders. That's all. If you convince Tom Hanks and his studio that you should be allowed to distribute an edited version of Saving Private Ryan for X dollars, then you can do it. Technology is not supposed to provide a way of circumventing copyright -- and this is no different than buying a videotape, splicing out the "dirty bits" and selling it. You don't have a right to do that without the copyright holders' permissions.
And why stop at the director of the movie - if it's based on a book, then should we force people to read that too - after all, the directory could have made a bad movie from a good book, won't that hurt the author's reputation?
But the difference is that the copyright holder of the book has the right to approve or disapprove of movie adaptations. If you want to make a movie of the latest Harry Potter book, you have to get J.K. Rowling's permission (and pay her handsomely, too). In the case we are discussing, the distributer of the derivative works is neither getting the copyright holders' permissions nor compensating them.
I don't think these are derivative works. {snip} No distribution, no copyright law.
Correct me if I'm misinformed.
I don't think that you are misinformed, but I think that it will take a court of law to determine whether this counts as a redistribution. As an analogy, suppose I ran a diff of a Windows CD against a Redhat CD and published the resulting diff file. Have I redistributed something? I think that Microsoft would rightly argue that I had because I gave people a simple, automated means, or recreating a Windows CD. Isn't that what RCA/Clearplay is doing -- giving people a simple, automated means of recreating a derivative version of a movie?
Clearplay isn't getting paid for selling a modified version. They have no idea what you are watching, they never touch the machine, they never get a per movie fee. They are simply selling you a machine which can display a modified version.
Completely wrong. RCA sells the machine and they pay Clearplay to create the edits. Thus, Clearplay is being paid to modify content.
The key words are "GET PAID", they have been compensated for their time.
So if the Goo Goo Dolls "GET PAID" when I buy their album, can I edit it and sell rights to the edited version to RCA? Sounds like what Clearplay is doing here.
As for not being "consciously aware of the edits" - I mean, you specifically chose to buy a product of which this is the driving feature, and you have the freedom to play the movie in a "regular" player (or just turn off the b00bie blocker) and compare the two.
That requires that you actively compare the two and watch the material that you find offensive. Not going to happen, thus you won't be aware of the edits. You won't know if Martin Scorcese is a horrible director or if the clumsy scene change was done by some hack in Utah. You won't know if the character you're watching is horribly written or if his actions make perfect sense had you not missed an important "censored" scene.
As long as that right-wing zealot in Utah, his buddy John Ashcroft and a couple of dozen black clad jack booted federal agents don't bust down my door and FORCE me to watch their "auto-edited" version and nothing but their "auto-edited" version, where's the problem?
The problem is that it can hurt the reputation of the director and the actors when the viewer has no knowledge of what edits have taken place. Was that clumsy transition something the Stanley Kubrick did? Only the guy who created the edit instructions knows.
Think about what you're saying: I buy a copy of a film on DVD and settle down to watch it with my stopwatch and clipboard handy. Having identified and recorded all the "naughty" bits, I then send you a report (a REPORT, mind you, not a copy of the DVD) that says "start the movie, watch it till index hh:mm:ss, then stop and forward to index hh:mm:ss" (etc) that you can use to skip the naughty bits on YOUR copy of the DVD that YOU BOUGHT - only to have Tom, Steve and Stan bust in and say "Wait a second, this infringes my rights as a creator."
If you want to do it that way, then I fully support your free speech rights to communicate that information and don't believe that the directors or anyone else has a right to interfere. It's when the viewer is not consciously aware of the edits that I have a real problem (see above).
Would you rather have Tom, Steve and Stan tone down their art so that nobody gets offended, depriving you of the choice to watch the "raw and uncut" version?
Since this technology didn't exist before and the existing movies aren't toned down, the argument is flawed. The directors are creating the movies as they see appropriate -- puritans be damned.
You are welcome to do that to a picture of their mom or mine as long as you don't then sell it or post it or whatever, since you own it and they or I sold it to you.
Thank you for making my point for me. When you buy a CD and put it into the RCA player, it's not you modifying it. It's Clearplay, who is getting paid for creating the unauthorized derivative work.
Did you really think that just because you turn your point into a personal attack that it would change everyone's mind?
I didn't attack anyone. I didn't say anything bad about him, his mother, etc. He's the one who said that directors who don't want their work hacked up should "shut the fuck up."
Do you think it's not "personal" when you make changes to a director's movie? If I spent years of my life making a movie, I'd take it personally if you changed it without my permission.
You are giving extreme cases where the objectionable part is the story line. Obviously you can't watch the movies that you mention and hope to get anything out of them without the atrocities and violence. That is what the movie is trying to communicate and is therefore integral to the movie.
I could give examples where a subtlety of expression during a sex scene made all of the difference in the world or where a certain uttered vulgarity gave important nuances about a relationship or a character. A brilliant director understands that, but does some Mormon zealot editing the film in Salt Lake City, Utah? I doubt it. I gave extreme examples because they are obvious for even those with the most crude sensibilities.
This is the same movie and both of the movies carry the same director's and producer's names, but the impact is totally different.
Then that argues pretty strongly against censorship, doesn't it? It's sad, but directors have to sign away their rights with regards to editing for TV, in-flight movies, etc., but they have not signed away those rights for DVDs -- and it's not the place of RCA/Clearplay to create derivative works without the artists' permissions.
As to the art portion, see my post earlier in this thread. Art is sometimes carried to the extreme.
Are they getting paid? Sure. Well, then, you can tell Tom, Steve and Stan that I said have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.
Fine. I'll buy a picture of your mom from you, scan it in, and then, using Photoshop, make a picture of her being sodomized by a donkey. If you don't like it, then you can "have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."
What's next: blocking the fast forward button because it might interfere with how the artist wants "his" work experienced?
No, that's only done for FBI warnings.
Newsflash for you: once I buy or rent it, I'm allowed some degree of say in how I experience it.
Yes, you are, but that doesn't mean that some right-wing zealot in Utah has a legal right to auto-edit it for you, creating a derivative work in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't watch all the atrocities. I actually missed some of it because I was talking w/ my wife. Does that make Tom Hanks unhappy and why should I give a shit about what his 'vision' of his art is?
You should care because you have respect for him as a person, his skills as an actor, and the tremendous effort it takes to make a movie of that caliber.
An artist can have any vision he wants about any work he wants, but it is my view that determines if it is shit or a classic.
You might be able to develop a more informed opinion if you actually watched the movie rather than talking through it like some low-class trailer-park trash.
They are not putting this technology in every dvd player, nor are you forced to use this feature.
When a viewer watches a movie in a DVD player that includes this technology, the film is changed without the permission of the copyright holder, and the viewer may be left with an unfavorable impression of the film solely because of the changes. Word of mouth from that viewer could lead to lost DVD sales, harm to the reputation of the producer, director, actors, and studio. If your coworker told you that movie X was really confusing and poorly edited, you would not automatically ask "did you see it on a DVD player that removes 'objectionable' content"? Probably not. You'd just avoid that movie next time you went to rent or buy a DVD.
It moves sensorship[sic] from the fcc to the individual.
No, it moves censorship into the hands of Clearplay and the Mormon Church (the founder of Clearplay, BYU graduate Matt Jarmon, created the venture to make movies "Mormon-friendly").
If you are an "artist" then don't give consumers control over how your material is displayed. i.e. don't put out a dvd. You cannot have it both ways, that is complete control over presentation and the revenue stream generated by a medium that is implicitly controlled by the consumer.
The argument isn't against the consumer being able to pause, fast-forward, mute, etc. You have "fair use" rights to edit the DVD, rip it to your hard drive, replace the soundtrack, take out the dirty parts, take out everything but the dirty parts, and so on.
The problem with this is that RCA/Clearplay is not the consumer. They are editing the movies for profit, and by doing so, creating derivative works. Whether they do it in the player on the fly or provide physical media is immaterial. They are presenting a version of the movie which has been modified without the permission of the copyright holder.
If the copyright holder for "Lost in Translation" feels that a squeeky-clean version would, for artistic or monetary reasons, be a bad idea, they can choose not to permit such editing. And if a puritanical consumer doesn't want to see an unedited version of "Lost in Translation", then they can choose to see some other film.
Your argument carries a fallacious implicit assumption that the directors/artists rights carry more weight than the person who views them.
I make no such assumption, implicit or otherwise. If you, as a consumer, want to edit a DVD that you purchased, you have every right to do so - as long as you are not creating a derivative work for profit. You can take sex scenes out. You can splice them in from other movies. You can remove every instance of the word "adjust". You can speed it up, slow it down, or reverse the direction. Whatever floats your boat. But your purchase of a DVD does not permit RCA/Clearplay to create a derivative work from it.
They are not creating a derivative work, no matter how much you want to believe it. If I buy a fancy editing DVD player, and I buy a DVD to play in this DVD player, then I am creating a derivative work when I put the DVD in the DVD player- not Clearplay. And that is fully within my rights as long as I don't then copy and distribute that edited DVD.
Absurd. You are creating nothing. You aren't making edits, controlling the mute, or doing anything else related to the editing. You don't even know where to make the edits. You're simply sticking a DVD into a device which, through automation, creates and presents a derivative work on the fly.
It just makes you feel guilty about your pr0n habit when you read about people that choose to avoid content like that.
Unlike you, I'm not some conservative, puritanical, self-righteous, religious dogmatist who feels guilty about sex. If you are so scarred by religion that just seeing depictions of adult sexuality in a movie makes you uneasy, then stick with Disney films, but don't try to tell me that some Mormon zealot has a right to modify movies for profit without the copyright holder's permission.
Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, and Stanley Kubrick's happiness is irrelevant to me.
So what? I was refuting the claim by a poster who said this was a "win-win".
When I rent a movie, I pay money to entertain myself, not Tom Hanks. If I have to choose between what somebody else wants me to see and what I want to see, I will choose what I want to see every time.
The question isn't about what you want. It's about the rights of artists and copyright owners to control who edits their movies and, in the process, creates derivative works.
This really isn't that difficult.
Apparently it is, given the trouble you are having in recognizing that your desires don't trump someone else's legal rights.
To me it looks like RCA/Clearplay is selling a DVD players, and a list of times which tell a their player to turn off audio and video during certain parts of the movie of a specific movie, if the users wants to. Eg. From 22:45 to 22:46 don't play audio which containts "fuck", from 65:34 tp 73:03 don't play audio and video because there is a sex scene going on, etc. No modified or edited DVDs are leaving their offices, stores and warehouses. They are selling data about a movie, and a machine which can implement that data, if the consumer wants. No more.
You are completely correct. But the end result is what matters: The consumer is viewing a derivative work. Rather than seeing the movie as it was intended by the copyright owner, he's seeing something different. I don't think that Congress intended to ban the sale of derivative works on videotape but thought that delivering said works via an electronic means was an acceptable form of commerce. That they have found a way to create derivative works on the fly doesn't mean that they have a right to deliver such works to consumers without the permission of the copyright owner.
And it looks like you are playing the game of "How big of an idiot can fmaxwell be". Congrats. You just got a new high score.
Debate like a grown-up and quit resorting to childish insults. Or just go away. Either one is fine with me. But don't waste bandwith and storage if you lack the mental acuity to debate the points of this discussion.
I'm not trying to "weasel around copyright laws using technology" - your original (oh so many comments ago) post said zip about copyright (which, let's remember, is a *commercial* statute), it was about the importance of "artistic vision".
;)
That's what copyrights protect. Duh! They allow a copyright owner to protect the artistic vision of his work.
As a parting comment, if this is just about copyrights and derivative works, then your earlier comment here about how you "...fully support your free speech rights to communicate that information and don't believe that the directors or anyone else has a right to interfere" doesn't stand up: how on earth do I have a free speech right to communicate derivative works without the copyright owner's permission?
Didn't score too high on reading comprehension, did you? I said that someone had the right to communicate where the naughty bits were in a movie, not to communicate a derivative work.
YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED. YOU LOSE IT. HAVE A NICE DAY
Why would you be proud of wasting someone's time. Grow up.
I've got 70 people listed on my freaks list and 238 on my fans list. You really are an idiot, aren't you? You just gave that one to me on a silver platter. LOL
And how, exactly, is that any different than me choosing how I'd like to watch the movie that I legally purchased?
I may want to watch "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" with a 7-dwarf gang-bang scene, but it doesn't mean that some corporate entity has a right to insert such a scene into the movie as a for profit venture.
There seems to be no logical problem in this.
Right. It's fair use. You are sharing the movie with a friend and not as a for-profit venture.
Instead of watching the movie at my place, he calls me up and asks me to come and program his DVD player so that he can watch the movie at his place the way we always enjoy it. How is this fundamentally different and not allowed?
As long as you don't get paid for it, it *may* be legal. If the chapter play is "random", then it can be argued that you are not creating a work as you are not exercising enough control for it to be considered your work.
But courts don't interpret the law by stringing far-fetched analogies together. Courts examine the intent of laws. Was the intent of the copyright laws to allow or prevent this type of commercial behavior? If the legislators didn't want someone to be able to physically redistribute an edited videotape or edited DVD, did they want someone else to be able to accomplish the same effect using high-speed seeking of DVD laser pickups, CPUs, and databases stored in a DVD player?
If they were to allow a company to delete scenes programmatically, would they also allow a company to replace dialog or scenes in a future DVD player? Would Clearplay be allowed to substitute dialog discussing the evils of premarital sex into a movie that previously had no such dialog?
By the way, about your picture of my mother analogy, as long as you don't try to display the photo as the original artist's intent
So do these DVD players put up a disclaimer over the credits stating that what the viewer has seen is an unauthorized edit of the movie, or do they just roll the credits as if nothing had happened? I don't know.
Copyright law says I can't sell it and claim it's mine, and that I can't make copies or derived works, but it most emphatically does not say that I have to watch it "as the director intended".
Yes, copyright law says that you can't sell derived works. And neither can RCA/Clearplay. That they have found a way to deliver edited films via electronic commands to a DVD player does not change the end result: They are creating, and profiting from, derivative works. They may not be using razor blades and adhesive tape to splice movies, but doing it electronically is still creating a derivative work.
Why do you keep coming back to the "poor-quality, artistically questionable edits" of these movies?
For one reason, you can't do a high-quality edit using the a fast-forward control. For another reason, there are very few people who have the artistic vision and editing ability of a Stanley Kubrick, a David Lean, or a Tom Hanks -- and it's doubtful that they are spending their career working in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thus the "artistically questionable" phrase.
And bringing the concept of Derivative works into a discussion of artistic vision is a double edged sword: although Tom Hanks may (may!) own the copyrights to his films (at least those he directs), the vast majority of movie copyrights are owned by the studios and/or producers, not the directors or actors.
That's a red herring argument. It's like saying that many artists sold the copyrights to their music, so anyone should be allowed to create derivative works for all music without compensating the copyright holder or getting permission from said copyright holder.
As for "this is no different than buying a videotape, splicing out the "dirty bits" and selling it" - yes it is: this is like selling people a guide which lets them splice out the "dirty bits" on their own videos.
You are completely, 100%, totally incorrect. If you sell them a guide, they know where the movies are being "spliced." What we are discussing is an electronic means of delivering an edited movie. The end result is a movie that plays from one end to another without user intervention and without the user being informed of where cuts were taking place. Again, you're playing the game of trying to weasel around copyright laws using technology.
Suppose you sell a diff of a Windows ISO and a Redhat ISO. That's just a description of how to change one into the other, so it's not a copyright violation. Yeah. Tell that to Microsoft.
There is no creation of a derivative work. There is no redistribution.
Of course there is. The derivative work is the edited version and it's being distributed electronically via instructions to a DVD player.
As I said in another post, technology is not supposed to provide a way to circumvent existing copyright laws. Suppose that Clearplay existed in 1985 and had a videotape of a commercial movie. Would it be legal for them to edit it and provide it to a customer for a profit? No, because it is a derivative work. The fact that they've figured out how to cut out scenes with a CPU rather than scissors doesn't change the basic fact that they are distributing a derivative work.
I get the feeling that for whatever reason you are just pissed that some people have different standards than you do.
To some extent, you are right. I am angry that people think that it's okay for some hack to take someone else's intellectual property, modify it, and redistribute it without the copyright holder's permission. There are movies that I find offensive. There are scenes in movies that I wish were not there. But I don't think that my dislike of those scenes means that I have a right to modify how others view the movie.
Well that's easy enough to fix: flash a little "this has been altered" icon on the screen or on the player during or just before/after any modified scenes. Add a disclaimer that says "this movie is being player through a b00bie blocker - some artistic degradagion may have occurred".
That sounds like a very good start to addressing the concerns that I, and many others, have with this device.
When you say things like "That requires that you actively compare the two and watch the material that you find offensive. Not going to happen..." you are ignoring the fact that rights are about what you may do, not what you actually do.
No, I am not. I'm saying that the rights of the director and actors are being violated and their reputations sullied by poor-quality, artistically questionable edits to their movies.
You continuously rail against "some hack in Utah" but what you're proposing is a beret wearing art policeman from... I dunno, Greenwich Village, who ensures that movies are only seen the "right" way.
Not true at all. I'm proposing that this be treated as a derivative distribution for which the distributer (RCA/Clearplay) needs to get permission from the copyright holders. That's all. If you convince Tom Hanks and his studio that you should be allowed to distribute an edited version of Saving Private Ryan for X dollars, then you can do it. Technology is not supposed to provide a way of circumventing copyright -- and this is no different than buying a videotape, splicing out the "dirty bits" and selling it. You don't have a right to do that without the copyright holders' permissions.
And why stop at the director of the movie - if it's based on a book, then should we force people to read that too - after all, the directory could have made a bad movie from a good book, won't that hurt the author's reputation?
But the difference is that the copyright holder of the book has the right to approve or disapprove of movie adaptations. If you want to make a movie of the latest Harry Potter book, you have to get J.K. Rowling's permission (and pay her handsomely, too). In the case we are discussing, the distributer of the derivative works is neither getting the copyright holders' permissions nor compensating them.
Considering that you've never seen me and that you are apparently too stupid to create a user ID on Slashdot, I'm not too concerned with your opinion.
I don't think these are derivative works.
{snip}
No distribution, no copyright law.
Correct me if I'm misinformed.
I don't think that you are misinformed, but I think that it will take a court of law to determine whether this counts as a redistribution. As an analogy, suppose I ran a diff of a Windows CD against a Redhat CD and published the resulting diff file. Have I redistributed something? I think that Microsoft would rightly argue that I had because I gave people a simple, automated means, or recreating a Windows CD. Isn't that what RCA/Clearplay is doing -- giving people a simple, automated means of recreating a derivative version of a movie?
I was being sarcastic because I was tired of dealing with straw man arguments.
Tom Hanks's goddamned artistic vision isn't more important than people's rights.
Yes, it is.
As one of those "Mormon zealot[s]," I take issue with your statement. When I purchase a movie, I purchase the right to view that movie as a I please.
Yes, you do. But you don't have a right to provide your edits to others for a profit. That's the creation of a derivative work.
Clearplay isn't getting paid for selling a modified version. They have no idea what you are watching, they never touch the machine, they never get a per movie fee. They are simply selling you a machine which can display a modified version.
Completely wrong. RCA sells the machine and they pay Clearplay to create the edits. Thus, Clearplay is being paid to modify content.
The key words are "GET PAID", they have been compensated for their time.
So if the Goo Goo Dolls "GET PAID" when I buy their album, can I edit it and sell rights to the edited version to RCA? Sounds like what Clearplay is doing here.
As for not being "consciously aware of the edits" - I mean, you specifically chose to buy a product of which this is the driving feature, and you have the freedom to play the movie in a "regular" player (or just turn off the b00bie blocker) and compare the two.
That requires that you actively compare the two and watch the material that you find offensive. Not going to happen, thus you won't be aware of the edits. You won't know if Martin Scorcese is a horrible director or if the clumsy scene change was done by some hack in Utah. You won't know if the character you're watching is horribly written or if his actions make perfect sense had you not missed an important "censored" scene.
As long as that right-wing zealot in Utah, his buddy John Ashcroft and a couple of dozen black clad jack booted federal agents don't bust down my door and FORCE me to watch their "auto-edited" version and nothing but their "auto-edited" version, where's the problem?
The problem is that it can hurt the reputation of the director and the actors when the viewer has no knowledge of what edits have taken place. Was that clumsy transition something the Stanley Kubrick did? Only the guy who created the edit instructions knows.
Think about what you're saying: I buy a copy of a film on DVD and settle down to watch it with my stopwatch and clipboard handy. Having identified and recorded all the "naughty" bits, I then send you a report (a REPORT, mind you, not a copy of the DVD) that says "start the movie, watch it till index hh:mm:ss, then stop and forward to index hh:mm:ss" (etc) that you can use to skip the naughty bits on YOUR copy of the DVD that YOU BOUGHT - only to have Tom, Steve and Stan bust in and say "Wait a second, this infringes my rights as a creator."
If you want to do it that way, then I fully support your free speech rights to communicate that information and don't believe that the directors or anyone else has a right to interfere. It's when the viewer is not consciously aware of the edits that I have a real problem (see above).
Would you rather have Tom, Steve and Stan tone down their art so that nobody gets offended, depriving you of the choice to watch the "raw and uncut" version?
Since this technology didn't exist before and the existing movies aren't toned down, the argument is flawed. The directors are creating the movies as they see appropriate -- puritans be damned.
You are welcome to do that to a picture of their mom or mine as long as you don't then sell it or post it or whatever, since you own it and they or I sold it to you.
Thank you for making my point for me. When you buy a CD and put it into the RCA player, it's not you modifying it. It's Clearplay, who is getting paid for creating the unauthorized derivative work.
Did you really think that just because you turn your point into a personal attack that it would change everyone's mind?
I didn't attack anyone. I didn't say anything bad about him, his mother, etc. He's the one who said that directors who don't want their work hacked up should "shut the fuck up."
Do you think it's not "personal" when you make changes to a director's movie? If I spent years of my life making a movie, I'd take it personally if you changed it without my permission.
You are giving extreme cases where the objectionable part is the story line. Obviously you can't watch the movies that you mention and hope to get anything out of them without the atrocities and violence. That is what the movie is trying to communicate and is therefore integral to the movie.
I could give examples where a subtlety of expression during a sex scene made all of the difference in the world or where a certain uttered vulgarity gave important nuances about a relationship or a character. A brilliant director understands that, but does some Mormon zealot editing the film in Salt Lake City, Utah? I doubt it. I gave extreme examples because they are obvious for even those with the most crude sensibilities.
This is the same movie and both of the movies carry the same director's and producer's names, but the impact is totally different.
Then that argues pretty strongly against censorship, doesn't it? It's sad, but directors have to sign away their rights with regards to editing for TV, in-flight movies, etc., but they have not signed away those rights for DVDs -- and it's not the place of RCA/Clearplay to create derivative works without the artists' permissions.
As to the art portion, see my post earlier in this thread. Art is sometimes carried to the extreme.
Wow! How does one even address that?
Are they getting paid? Sure. Well, then, you can tell Tom, Steve and Stan that I said have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.
Fine. I'll buy a picture of your mom from you, scan it in, and then, using Photoshop, make a picture of her being sodomized by a donkey. If you don't like it, then you can "have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."
What's next: blocking the fast forward button because it might interfere with how the artist wants "his" work experienced?
No, that's only done for FBI warnings.
Newsflash for you: once I buy or rent it, I'm allowed some degree of say in how I experience it.
Yes, you are, but that doesn't mean that some right-wing zealot in Utah has a legal right to auto-edit it for you, creating a derivative work in the process.